The Mann Report

4 p.m. A couple of quick points. Readers should understand that I have limited expectations from this sort of inquiry. What I do expect is that the authors not make untrue statements that can be easily disproven. (At least make them hard to disprove.)

“I know they’ve taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides,” Spanier said.

The only interviews mentioned in the report (aside from Mann) are with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy, editor of Science. [Since they are required to provide a transcript or summary of all interviews, I presume that the Inquiry did not carry out any other interviews.] What does Donald Kennedy know about the matter? These two hardly constitute “looking at issues from all sides”. [A CA reader observed below that “North [at a Rice University event] admitted that he had not read any of the EAU e-mails and did not even know that software files were included in the release.”] They didn’t even talk to Wegman. Contrary to Spanier’s claim, they did not make the slightest effort to talk to any critic or even neutral observer.

Point 2. The Penn State Committee stated:

The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.

This is untrue on a variety of levels. The “trick” is not a “legitimate” statistical method; its essence is the failure to show adverse data. See Climate Audit here or the DailyMail here. Did they do any investigation of the “trick”? They don’t even seem to have read the relevant Climate Audit post – only realclimate.

Point 3. The Report states:

The allegation inquires about whether Dr. Mann seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. In 2006, similar questions were asked about Dr. Mann and these questions motivated the National Academy of Sciences to undertake an in depth investigation of his research.

Similar questions may have been asked in 2006 but the National Academy of Sciences panel did not carry out an “in depth” investigation into whether Mann had “deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Ralph Cicerone of NAS, together with Gerry North, drew up terms of reference that specifically excluded such an investigation. This is discussed in CA post Sir Humphrey and the Boehlert Questions.

While the Science Committee had asked questions about MBH, Cicerone did not submit these questions to the NAS Panel. Cicerone framed the terms of reference as follows (See the Sir Humphrey post for context):

the committee will summarize current scientific information on the temperature record for the past 1,000-2,000 years, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change. The committee will address tasks such as identifying the variables for which proxy records have been employed, describing the proxy records that have been used to reconstruct surface temperature records for the pre-instrumental period, assessing the methods employed to combine multiple proxy data to develop surface temperature reconstructions, discussing the geographical regions over which proxy data can be reliably extrapolated, and evaluating the overall accuracy and precision of such reconstructions.

When Hans von Storch showed the Boehlert questions in a PPT slide, it caused great consternation for the panel – many of whom had never seen the Boehlert questions – and they had a hard time deciding whether they would entertain von Storch’s presentation on these matters.

Panelist Christy asked Mann whether he had calculated a verification r2 for the AD1400 step and what it was. Notwithstanding overwhelming evidence that the verification r2 statistic for this step had been calculated along with the RE statistic, Mann famously said that he had not calculated a verification r2 statistic as that would be a “foolish and incorrect reasoning”. No one on the panel asked Mann why he had shown verification r2 results for the AD1820 step or why it was calculated in the same step as the RE statistic – though they had been briefed on both points. Instead, North and the panelists sat there like bumps on a log. My contemporary post on Mann’s presentation is here and noted:

Christy did ask Mann: “Did you calculate R2?” ‘? Mann’s answer was: “We didn’t calculate it. That would be silly and incorrect reasoning”‘?. Whenever I hear this statement in my mind, the following phrase runs through my mind: “I did not have r2 with that statistic, Miss Lewinsky”.

We had discussed the verification r2 issue in considerable depth on the previous day, even showing a graphic in which Mann had shown verification r2 for the AD1820 step. However, no one on the panel challenged Mann either about his claim that they did not calculate the r2 statistic or why it would be “silly and incorrect reasoning”‘? to calculate the r2 statistic – a point which is not only not self-evident, but incorrect. Perhaps the non-statistical panelists were reluctant to step into an area where they were not experts, given Mann’s aggressive and dismissive response to Christy. However, Nychka and Bloomfield, as statisticians, should have stepped here. I’ve pointed out Nychka’s association with Ammann (he is acknowledged in Wahl and Ammann [2006]); Nychka is a decent guy, but he should have made way for an independent statistician.

Mann arrived at the NAS presentation shortly before his presentation and left immediately after answering the panel questions (before any public questions.) I criticized the panel at the time for not resolving the verification r2 issue that had been specifically mentioned in the very first letter from NAS to the Barton Committee. North and the others sat there like bumps on a log. After the session, Nychka came up to me and said that just because they didn’t say anything about Mann’s verification r2 answer didn’t mean that they didn’t notice what had happened. But then they didn’t deal with it.

Update: 11 pm: The Inquiry Report stated that Mann “consented to the public release” of the report. RA-10 says:

A written report shall be prepared that states what evidence was reviewed, a copy of all interview transcripts and/or summaries, and includes the conclusions of the inquiry.

The Inquiry Report says that their interview with Mann was recorded and transcribed. Despite the RA-10 requirement that the written report include a “copy of all interview transcripts”, the Inquiry Report did not contain a transcript of the interview with Mann. The Inquiry Report stated that Mann provided a ten page supplemental written response to the matters discussed during his interview. Contary to RA-10, this was not included in the written report.

The Inquiry Report said that Gerald North and Donald Kennedy were interviewed. Once again, despite RA-10 requirements, the Inquiry Report did not contain a transcript and/or summary of the interviews with North or Kennedy.

RA-10 said that the Inquiry Report should state “what evidence was reviewed”. It also states:

Documentation in sufficient detail to permit a later assessment, if necessary, of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted shall be maintained for a period of at least three years by the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, and shall be made available upon request to any involved Federal agencies.

Here is how the Inquiry Report describes what evidence was reviewed:

It was agreed that these individuals would meet again in early January and that they would use the time until that meeting to review the relevant information, including the above mentioned e-mails, journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the National Academy of Sciences report entitled “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,” ISBN: 0-309-66144-7 and various blogs on the internet.

Does the statement that they looked at “journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the NAS report and various blogs on the internet” constitute acceptable “documentation” at Penn State for a freshman essay, much less for an Inquiry Report required to provide “sufficient detail to permit a later assessment, if necessary, of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted”.

Speaking of which – the only evidence said to have been considered by the Inquiry was what was already in the public record. They did not examine any of Mann’s correspondence that was not already on the public record. RA-10 states that “Relevant research records, documents, and/or materials shall be immediately sequestered.” This does not appear to have been done.

Pass the (bucks)! An investigation determines that an investigation may be warranted! But only a LITTLE investigation, mind you. We wouldn’t want a full investigation. That might lead to a bigger investigation of the first investigation. PSU is screwed. I’m signing up for the eventual class action suit for the thousands (millions?) they planned on taking from me. Bastards. But I still support the track team!

From the Penn State report:
>”At this point, Dr. Foley reviewed the relevant points of his conversation with Dr. Gerald North, a professor at Texas A&M University and the first author of the NAS’ 2006 report on Dr. Mann’s research on paleoclimatology. Dr. Foley also relayed the sentiment and view of Dr. Donald Kennedy of Stanford University and the former editor of Science Magazine about the controversy currently swirling around Dr. Mann and some of his colleagues. Both were very supportive of Dr. Mann and of the credibility of his science.”<

The latter account gives a very dissimilar picture; essentially saying the NAS Panel concluded that Mann's work was shoddy, and that the Panel largely agreed with Wegman's conclusions.
How can North publicly praise Mann (which apparently he did following release of the NAS paper in 2006) yet conclude that Mann's methodology was flawed? Now North again comes to Mann's defense. How can this be??? Is North part of the circling-the-wagons effort to protect the science of AGW?
I attended the Lindzen-North climate debate at Rice University last week; during the debate, North admitted that he had not read any of the EAU e-mails and did not even know that software files were included in the release. North did say that he had read some accounts of the EAU e-mails written by others. So if North was not fully versed in the Climategate e-mails, was he qualified to render an opinion in this matter?

Penn State seems to have planted the seed that they are not responsible for, and therefore will not pass judgment on work done by or acts committed by Mann prior to his arrival at Penn State. Perhaps UMass and others need to protect their reputations too!

Interpretation of Policy AD-47 General Standards of Professional Ethics will be key to the outcome. The questions are 1) what were Dr. Mann’s actions and 2) were they ethical according to this document. If only an innocuous set of actions is considered, rather than behaviors ranging from novel statistical gymnastics designed to get the “right” answer to denigrating published critics as energy-industry shills, then don’t expect anything other than full exoneration.

The standard of professional ethics for the University of Pennsylvania can be summarized by a set of generic ethics statements for professors. The standard contains no specific criteria by which a faculty member could be evaluated as being unethical. The statements contain no specific measure of ethical behavior. There are no references in the policy to outside standards. Consider one statement in Section III. “They, (the faculty member), must be scrupulous in the presentation of their own data; it must be verifiable as a result of the highest standards in data gathering techniques”. How does one objectively evaluate whether Dr. Mann has been scrupulous in the presentation of data which is a verifiable result of the highest standards in data gathering? How would you measure scrupulousness? How is scrupulous defined? What are the standards you should use in data gathering (selection)? Where are the standards written down? This statement is entirely subjective and undefined even though it applies directly his correlation between CO2 concentration and average global temperatures over time. If Dr. Mann selectively picked data to show that temperature drastically increased with the increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, he could still have been scrupulous and used his standard for data gathering. For example, there are two meaning of scrupulous: (1) having or showing a strict regard for what is right, and (2) punctiliousness, careful and precise. The use of scrupulous in the standard implies meaning 2. He was very careful in selecting the data for the hockey stick. Today, who could deny that the way he established the hockey stick diagram was verifiable? By the standards practiced by most scientists, Dr. Mann was not scrupulous according to meaning number 1. He did not use scrupulous standards in selecting the data for the hockey stick. He did not objectively select the data used in the hockey stick correlation And conveniently, the IPCC and other AGW groups ran with his correlation without checking it out.
The University standard is so loosely written that it would be hard to convict any faculty member of unethical behavior unless they completely plagiarized their work. Only future history will judge him.

John Thank you for correcting my error. I should have known that Penn means Penn State. Nevertheless, the policy statement I used was from Penn State and not U of Penn.I used the policy from this blog above, RA 47.

“This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong,” Mann told New Scientist. “I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts.

New York Times: “An academic board of inquiry has largely cleared a noted Pennsylvania State University climatologist of scientific misconduct, but a second panel will convene to determine whether his behavior undermined public faith in the science of climate change, the university said Wednesday…”.

To be honest the set of charges seems somehow to be narrowly crafted, with the exception of Allegation #4, the catchall category. As written, I am not surprised that they found no basis for the allegations IF they expected the emails to provide definitive information.

I will wait to hear from others with more first-hand and longer experience interacting with Mann et al. They may be able to point to documented instances that would support allegations #1 through #3. It is troubling that apparently nobody spoke to Prof. Wegman.

Allegation #4 is the catchall category and this is the one that gave the Committee pause. The tone and tenor of the emails which I and others found disturbing falls under this allegation. At least one member of the Committee clearly believes that Mann at a minimum could have behaved more professionally with respect to a number of events including responding more professionally to requests for data and related information.

The Faculty Committee appears to be singulalrly poorly equipped to determine the significance of the requests that were made of Mann for data and methods.

They focused on the word ‘trick’ and completely ignored the ‘hide the decline’

“They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.”

Yes, because it’s so much more “understandable” to non-experts when you can find way to make the trends appear to go the same way, and truncate the one that doesn’t.

I recall a recent post of yours in which you noted that North did not understand the “trick.” Neither did these guys. Nor did they want to. The sheer incompetence and arrogance of these people is breathtaking. They apparently believe they can get away with anything. Well, we shall see.

Thoroughly expected result. Having discharged their scholastic duty, all those learned Profs can now remove their (very) rose-tinted glasses. Isn’t it lucky that such a thorough investigation resulted in no grounds for grants to be withdrawn. Phew!

Circle the wagons, “going North”. Whitewash better used on the Stevenson screens for better data.

At the very last, a sop. PSU attempts to to delay and defuse criticism with the mildest reason for a (too) short investigation with one last chance to check the wind direction in April/May.

We’ll all be waiting with bated breath to see if State Penn U examines Mann’s historical acts in depth or even offers belated reforms and some FOI (like climate related data and emails) as appeasement or just tries to totally crawl away from the stink. Call me an “SPU” skeptic.

“Dr. Mann, in an e-mail response to a request for comment, said he was pleased that the panel had found “no evidence of any of the allegations against me.”

“Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely,” he wrote. “Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the University administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures. This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong.”

While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State.

He moved to Penn State in 2005, well after the 1998 and 1999 papers with their issues of censored directories and whether r2 was calculated, and use of the hockey stick in the 2001 IPCC TAR.

But didn’t Mann just have a paper published which inverted the Tijlander sediment data? Isn’t that a form of suppression/misrepresentation? What data did the enquiry look at? His most recently pubished paper? No? Oh well. Probably went too far back in his tenure to be relevant now…

The important point from the report to me is this –
[quote]At the time of initiation of the inquiry, and in the ensuing days during the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official.[/quote]

No one submitted a formal allegation (?), which allowed Penn State to frame the details of the investigation. A formal complaint, defining a specific instance where Mann engaged in unethical or improper behavior while a faculty member at Penn State, would redefine the investigation. Without that, they get to decide what they think was important.

It would seem incumbent upon the university to notify complainants of the “formal allegation” process. Did anyone who submitted a complaint receive this clarification and information? We’ve all seen this boilerplate response before, “If you want to file a formal complaint,…”

I though I’d posted a response to Keith W asking whether there was any sort of request for allegations. I don’t see it now. I can’t imagine what would have been objectionable about the question, as it’s explicitly concerning what you’re requesting here.

Amazing to see them repeating that nonsense about “hiding the decline” with a “trick” being a sophisticated mathematical procedure. Simply incredible. Maybe the same “trick” can be used to hide other inconvenient trends (using the same reasoning – that if you don’t hide it, it contradicts the desired impression).

You are right — it is intended for students. The student has a duty to the university… Perhaps inadvertently, You have also raised the issue of DUTY — similar to conflict of interest (COI). This was pointed out in a previous discussion by someone who made a very astute observation of COI and duty.

There is a duty to the university, and the university may have a duty to the professor — but there does not seem to be any significant duty to the public, to the source of fund of research etc.

My first look tells me that these agreements might not be terribly meaningful for any purpose discussed here so far.

What struck me as bizarre was their sole reliance upon Mann to supply a “full” copy of all of his emails regarding AR4 discussions. After receiving them, they conclude he has made full disclosure. I guess they are happy to take his word on it.

As Steve now notes, they did not interview anyone with a contrary opinion of Mann and who had dug deep to find his many interesting research techniques.

Reminds me of that Chinese professor Wang and where his “investigation” by his own university ended up.

No, we didn’t expect much. No, they didn’t even meet those expectations.

It’s easy to “find no evidence” if you don’t look in the right places. If they actually wanted Mann to be responsive to the specific issue, they would have asked him to bring an archive of deleted emails so they could see if he deleted significant AR4 emails.

Regarding point #2, whether or not Mann deleted emails per Phil Jones request to do so, the committee decided that he was exonerated based on two things:

1) He denied deleting emails.

2) He produced a zip file of emails

This proves nothing with respect to the charge. He would deny it guilty or not, and producing some emails in a zipfile does not address whether or not he did delete emails. The zipfile may contain emails that were not deleted, while other (presumably more damning ones) were deleted. Or, the zipfile may contain emails that were in fact deleted from publically auditable systems, but which Mann kept a personal copy of ‘just in case’.

It was not proper to address this question by interviewing Mann. Rather, IT from a law enforcement unit should have been brought in to examine the email system and official data archives.

In addition, there is the email from Phil Jones saying ‘delete AR4 emails and tell everybody else to do the same.’ to which Mann replies in the affirmative and says he’ll contact others right away. That is cut and dried conspiracy right there.

It seems odd to me that there’s a certain dichotomy about clearing him of wrongdoing on the AR4 emails. If he claims that he did not delete the AR4 emails and presented them to the investigative committee, then he should immediately have come under investigation for failing to respond to the FOIA request which specifically asked for the AR4 emails. That FOIA request was returned with a “no such emails exist” response.
snip

I thought that there was also a US request for AR4 comments and emails. Isn’t that the one that was finally fulfilled about a month ago after several years of waiting (as I recall) and several “no such data exists” responses.

Clearly if even one FOIA was filed in the U.S. and Mann didn’t answer it, then he obstructed the distribution of information. It seems to me that this is well documented.

Another thing that strikes me as unusual – who keeps their emails in a zip file? I keep emails in folders on my mail server. If I was downloading them, I probably would not go to the trouble to compress them. When you can get an 8 gigabyte flash drive for less than $20.00, there is really no need to create a compressed archive in downloading a bunch of emails. For that matter, why was Mann the one providing the file? Should not the person examining the server be from an outside source, so they can confirm what emails are there, and if any aren’t, no one can accuse them of complicity.

The academic world is one of “hands off” — letting everyone do their thing. Individual professors live in their own world where they teach their specialty classes (never challenged by the students) and give seminars where questions are mostly polite since the audience does not know as much as the speaker. They are not used to debating or solving problems extemporaneously. The emphasis on getting tenure inculcates a habit of avoiding controversy, since this can get you denied tenure. Insisting on things being correct makes one an unpleasant lunch companion. Such should be reserved for the anon journal reviewing role. Thus if someone is aggressive and makes patently untrue or nonsense statements, there is not much stomach for contradicting them. Read “Higher Superstition” or “Fashionable Nonsense” for dozens of examples of famous academics who write gibberish or falsehoods but who are defended by their colleagues. It is not what one would hope for, but there it is.

I think you hit the nail on the head. When I was doing my PhD in Physics, I tried to make serious conversations with the professors. They generally didn’t want to discuss in detail matters of conflict – sort of like solicitors. They wanted to make the appearance of helping you but not to the extent of “fighting” on your side in case you lose, rightly or wrongly. This attitude actually disgusts me. Unless all the honest scientists who disagree with the AGW thesis combine and come out openly and strongly denouncing the AGW as not only unproven but rubbish given the lack of evidence, their silence will make them as guilty as those who are peddling the AGW hoax.

I mean in general. Are you an academic? Do you find my characterization inaccurate? And since you brought up E&E, perhaps you would care to read my other papers in Mathematical Geology or Climatic Change or GRL? Part of my 120 publications.

Well, I’m an academic and I don’t recognise your description at all. Every time I go to a conference or project meeting I am discussing my work with people who usually know as much as I do about the subject. If someone talks about things that are patently untrue or nonsense, they will get hauled up pretty quickly.

The real verdict and debate is not happening in the academic world, scientific journals, the MSM, the UN or the IPCC. These institutions are irrelevant, out of date, past it, obsolete. The more they try to uphold the establishment status quo the more irrelevant they become.

This verdict is beyond the control of these organisations and will be/has been decided in the “Blogosphere” for better or worse.

Whether AGW is a distraction or a fact is also becoming irrelevant, the World is about to move on.

From the Daily Collegian Online:
“According to the report, the inquiry panel cleared Mann of the following research allegations: falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information.”

Refusing to share data is not suppressing it?
Threatening to delete data rather than share it under FOI is not intending to delete information and not violating research standards?
Failure to respond appropriately to FOI requests is not violating research standards?
As for misusing information, who knows? That’s why people asked for the data, to see if it had been cherry-picked or strangely massaged. The committee couldn’t possibly answer this question.

Well, these all still fall under accusation #4, that Mann did “engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, … actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community.”

And Wegman and North would agree that Mann’s hockey stick paper seriously deviated from accepted practices. Well, they would if they were under oath in front of Congress.

Donald Kennedy, before serving as president of Stanford, was a professor of ecology. He also headed the USFDA, for Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
Why was Kennedy consulted by Penn State University? He may be a surrogate for Mr. Holdren. It is not unreasonable for a university to consult, indirectly and with plausible deniability, with those holding office. Kennedy has recently been editor of a leading US journal, so this provides a plausible superficial explanation.

Can’t believe I’m defending Mann, but it was Jones that threatened to delete data, and many academics refuse to share data (not a crime, just bad behavior) and Mann is not subject to an FOI filed in Britain.

But Craig, I think that is an important point the panel overlooked. They are setting up precedent for how professors at their institution behave. Wouldn’t they at least use some language stating they regard that as unacceptable behavior? It doesn’t require them to “punish”, simply to state we expect better of our staff.

I am curious to know what the panel thought of Phil Jones’ activities. Would they exonerate him also? And if not, why would they not at least reprimand Mann for participating in discussions of deleting emails, withholding data, and boycotting publications that printed opposing opinions whether or not he acted on those discussions?

I don’t suppose we have all the evidence, but is there any known evidence that suggests Mann told any of his associates to discontinue those practices?

Sure seems like the rest of society is held to a higher standard than this.

Here’s a short list of Mann 08 which I’m more familiar with.
1- eliminate data which doesn’t agree.
2- Hand select preferred data to paste info on the ends of proxy’s
3- Paste on data to proxy’s in order to improve the blade
4- Use of temperature as a proxy to improve validation stats (hockeystickishness)
5- Use of filtered proxy’s to improve validation
6- Use of upside down proxy’s to improve hockey stick
7- Elimination of post 1960 data for ‘hide the decline’ series and pasting on the ends of the data to make it into a positive hockey stick
8- Non use of series which have less of a blade.

On and on, I wrote this list in under 2 minutes. Does any of that qualify for question 1

1.
Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

Steve will have to snip me if I go further so I’m sorry for the tone but my god how dumb do we have to be before we all see the fix is in. Why the heck can’t alleged scientists just say — well that’s not quite right. The SOB doesn’t need to be jailed or anything, but his work needs to be tossed, any government money needs to be taken back and his future work needs to be inspected with an electron microscope.

Don’t forget they gave Mann a half million in stimulus money. I could create 20 permanent jobs with that but he chucks it to the wind on bad paper with scatological value.

Sorry again for the vent but it’s just too much to listen to. These people don’t deserve my time.

So can we audit and investigate you Jeff? The CRU hackers did post their message on your site after all.How much do you know about the CRU hack? Are you cooperating with any agencies in that regard?
Don’t snip this, JeffId you introduced motive concerning Mann, and now you have to answer. Have you been given any money for your “work” at AirVent? If so, by whgom?
I do pity you being so smart and all…but your maths is not that great. $500 K creating 20 permanent jobs!? Please show us the maths….your employees will not be working for very long. And just what exactly will they be doing?

Sorry for the inconvenient questions. Nice to ask them, not so nice to have to answer hey? Oh, and actually you don’t deserve anyone’s time. Get over yourself.

Steve: Please try to be more polite. This sort of impoliteness is very self-indulgent. And you’ll find that you’ll have more success making your points if you are more polite.

Jeff, I hate to add injury to insult but this just came in over the wire.
***********************message follows*********************************
To: Mr. Jeff Id
From: Commandant, National Domestic Extremism Team
RE: Phone Conversation Jan 8, 2010

Dear Mr Id,

We are very grateful for your candor during our phone conversation. I hope you understand that it was long distance. Due to budget constraints within our department I have to inform you that it was necessary for the NDET to reverse the charges.

How very odd that you claim that one does not need to be terribly smart at math. Poor try. One actually requires very good mathematical and statistical skills in climate research.

You are in the business of critiquing and chastising Mann and others about their science and math, so your math skills above disappoint. If one of your rivals had made that mistake, you would have been all over it. You made a mistake, deal with it.

Sorry, maybe I should have been more specific. Have you received anything for your work at AirVent? As for the money, sorry if I am a little cynical, but could we have the IRS verify that?

I’ll remind Steve again that JeffId brought up the issue of money, thereby suggesting motive on Mann’s part.

Have a nice day.

[Jean S: I’ve checked your math skills, and they don’t impress me much. After checking your IP, I think you have no business of being rude and hostile on this site. Your comments are OT, and from now on I will simply delete all of your comments unless they are strictly on the topic. You’ve been warned.]

Jean S, you just threatened me @11:53. You might want to seriously consider retracting that statement, it is only going to hurt CAs reputation. Oh, and this is a public web site. I have every right to ask relevant questions.

Nice to have all the power hey?

[Jean S : C’mon everyone can see the comment and there is no thread anywhere, I’m just advising you to stay on the topic. You are not asking any relevant questions, but being hostile to Steve and regulars here. Stop it, now.]

The role of M&M, if any (!), in the Mann investigation is very relevant. But it needs to be stated for the record.

Actually Jean going by the posts here, the ones being hostile (towards Mann et al.) are CA and its followers. I jumped on JeffId, because he was speaking about motive (wrt money), and is that not a no-no here?

Unlike Jeff, not only am I having a bad night, but a bad week, so my apologies for taking it out on Jeff and Craig. But my question to Steve stands.

Thanks. What people would like to know is what exactly was said in these “collegial discussions” that McI or McK had with Penn State? What requests, if any, were made. What accusations, if any were made? Did McIntyre and/or McK request or encourage others to contact Penn State, and if so, did he provide them with information/speaking points?

Neither I nor Ross contacted Penn State in connection with the inquiry that has just reported.
Nor were we contacted by anyone at Penn State.

Nor did I have any email or other correspondence with anyone in which I suggested or requested that they contact Penn State nor did I proofread or advise anyone on any such comment. Anything that I’ve said on this matter, I’ve said at the blog.

Having said that, I don’t think that it would have necessarily been improper for me to make a submission to a committee investigating the matter. I haven’t considered the topic.

My comments on the Committee thus far reported untrue statements made by the Committee. If there’s anything in what I wrote that is incorrect in the above post, please draw it to my attention and I’d be happy to correct it.

Thank you. I’m not sure how to interpret this “Neither I nor Ross contacted Penn State in connection with the inquiry that has just reported”.

This seems to be speaking to events that unfolded once the inquiry was set in motion, or did you mean to say that you did not contact PennState *prior* to the inquiry into allegations received concerning Mann? Could you please clarify whether or not you or anyone directly affiliated with CA contact them prior to 24 November 2009?
Steve: I didn’t contact them prior to Nov 24, 2009 either. Nor, to my knowledge, did Ross or anyone with CA editor access do so either. I don’t know that there would have been anything improper in any of us doing so.

Sorry Steve, I was grumpy last night. The ruling really wasn’t any different than I expected so why let it bother me?

For all the professors at Penn State University though, there is an update to what is considered standard practice in science. It is now accepted practice to eliminate data which does not meet your conclusions. This is especially true when that data comes from and instrument which measures temperature. Let your students know of this new and sophisticated advancement in science which is unique to your school. It will give your accountants, engineers, climatologists and physicists a distinct advantage in the real world over students that graduated from less forward thinking and progressive universities.

Regardless of whether Mann deleted his own emails regarding AR4, Mann participated in the conspiracy to delete emails when he assured Jones that he would contact Gene Wahl about Jones request for deletion of emails regarding AR4. In published reports Mann has admitted forwarding Jones email to Wahl.

The way I read the inquiry was as if the investigators had asked Bernie Madoff whether he was guilty and if he could hand over any incriminating documents, then when he denied his guilt and produced no incriminating documents they said “Ok, I guess you’re not guilty”. Reeks of either incompetence or corruption.

If you have been following the press in the UK lately, I doubt Phil Jones will survive this. The UK already assessed CRU (a.k.a Phil Jones) broke the law with respect to FOI. Even the Guardian has started going negative on the climate science lately.

We probably do not need hackers. As the file was submitted as evidence by Michael Mann in this inquiry, it is subject to the rules of evidence for the inquiry. As Steve has pointed out, Penn State’s code of ethics concerning investigations of this type require that the evidence be made available as part of the report of the investigation. So, technically, we, or someone connected to the University, should be able to ask for a copy of the file when the report is officially released. Plus, the initial report says the Mann agreed to the release of the report, so that would mean he agreed to the release of his email file.

Mann isn’t really guilty of anything beyond being a bully, bore and poor scientist. His kind flourishes in what passes for Science these days. The parties who should be ashamed of themselves are all those scientists who couldn’t be bothered to verify his claims. I guess they were too busy arguing over Linzden’s choice of models.

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent
to suppress or falsify data?

Mann spurned numerous requests to disclose his residuals. As the email below indicates, Mann undoubtedly suppressed data (aka Dirty Laundry) that would have revealed the uncertain quality of his proxy network before 1600. This is an intentional omission of a material fact for the purpose of misleading readers of the article as to the quality of the proxy networks, particularly as to the MWP. This topic formed one of the most powerful articles ever published by Steve in this blog. Penn State just shot themselves in the foot with this smoking gun, and in my mind ended forever their right to be taken seriously on any matter of importance.

Tim,
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can’t find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you’ll see that the
residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd
case–its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can’t seem to dig them
up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600–its pretty clear that key
predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably
larger uncertainties farther back…
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files.
I can’t even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
mike
p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on
this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So
please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of
“dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try
to distort things…

As much as I admire your persistence Steve McI, I think you have to concede this one. Mann’s been exonerated and I can’t see the separate enquiry achieving anything different with respect to Point 4. I’d rather see Steve McI’s efforts go towards producing his own temperature analysis and get this published in the peer reviewed literature. That is, in my view, the only way to end this whole charade; fight him on his own turf.

The inquiry was conducted in secret which allowed Mann to “explain himself” without fear of critics pointing out the lies and half-truths in his explainations. The only acceptable investigation will be one conducted in public, under oath with hostile cross examination.

Penn State might claim that they’re only investigating what he did while at Penn State, but they should also consider whether he got his job at Penn State based upon something by misrepresenting his previous work.

The following statement doesn’t have the embedded links: This is untrue on a variety of levels. The “trick” is not a “legitimate” statistical method; its essence is the failure to show adverse data. See Climate Audit here or the Daily Express here.

The usual procedure for a domestic tribunal requires, as a starting point, that the details of the complaint be obtained from the complainant with any supporting evidence. The allegations and the evidence are then put to the respondent and he is allowed a full opportunity to answer the allegations before an independent, disinterested tribunal.
It seems in this case that the tribunal itself imagined what the complaints would be, as they related to the academic integrity policy, from communications received at the university criticising Dr Mann.
The process in RA-10 is not appropriate for the discipline of faculty members. Dr Mann could take this point should any finding adverse to him be made.
I don’t know whether the findings made so far are correct or not. I do have an expectation that the university will follow a thorough process of review for disciplinary purposes and will make its findings public. If it does this, there can be no reasonable basis for complaint.

The scientific community generally does not seem to understand that, if it wishes to publish statements about dire danger for mankind, it must expect to be fully accountable for the processes used in producing those statements.

In the present case, the reputation of the university, the reputation of Dr Mann and the accuracy of the published research were at stake. It should have taken the greatest care to ensure the normal and complete prcesses of a domestic disciplinary tribunal were observed.

I think you are the closest to being correct. I will add a couple of points though — speaking as a layman who reads a lot of legal documents (guardhouse layer?). But first a quote….

PROCEDURE:

1. Anyone having reason to believe that a member of the faculty, staff, or a member of the student body has engaged in misconduct in research or other scholarly activity should discuss the situation with his or her budget administrator or budget executive, or the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. Allegations may be the result of misinterpreted communication or misunderstanding and therefore, they may be subject to resolution on a collegial basis, through discussion(s) designed to ascertain whether there is reason to believe that research misconduct may have occurred in violation of this policy. If the results of such discussion(s) confirm the possibility of research misconduct in violation of this policy, the matter should be reported, in writing, to the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. Upon receipt of written allegations of research misconduct, the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School shall promptly provide a copy of such written allegations to the budget executive and budget administrator of the area in which the accused individual is primarily employed, and the Director of The Office For Research Protections. In addition, the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School shall notify the accused individual of the alleged violation(s) of University policy.

The foregoing procedure shall also be followed in the event that an investigatory Committee appointed in accordance with Section 5 hereof obtains information that any individual, other than the one initially under investigation, has allegedly engaged in research misconduct.

First the procedure only allows handling internal complaints. Second there was no formal complaint, so any discussions must be “collegial” — i.e. fellow professors. I am sure Mann’s lawyer (if he had one) would have pointed out that “investigating the email server” would be a “police action” and “not collegial”. I suspect that Mann’s peers in his department would be reluctant to file a formal complaint. Bottom line there is no mechanism for external complaints! There is no mechanism for drawing non-peer, non-collegial evidence testimony or information — that I can see. Please correct me if I missed something.

As to Policy AD47 — it is a nice document and has a lot of statements with which I agree. But there is no enforcement mechanism. So it really isn’t terribly relevant. Expect no action here — it isn;t called for in the policy.

I think they did the best they could within the legal framework stated by these policies. Stepping outside their policies leaves them open to a lawsuit by Mann– which I believe he would prosecute successfully should that sequence of events come to pass.

Perhaps their finding will be used as a formal complaint for the last part. However, there is still no mechanism for drawing in external testimony and that not given by peers.

So unless you can formally complain the the “budget administrator” save your efforts…

You have put your finger on the point here. The enquiry is brought on by the university on its own motion. It does not fit within the process of RA-10. The university may have a general complaints procedure under quality assurance or risk management and that might respond to a formal complaint about the university itself – but that is all conjecture.

As you infer, the university has no power to subpoena documents or compel witnesses. The notion among bloggers seems to be that Dr Mann should be closely questioned on his methodology and results. An adverse finding would be extremely detrimental to his career. He would be unwise to co-operate with an enquiry of that kind, whether he is confident of his position or not.

The only enquiries with sufficient powers to address the questions of the integrity of the science are judicial or congressional (parliamentary)enquiries. Even they may be limited by their jurisdiction to act within a single country when witnesses are in a different country.

These same considerations apply in relation to the enquiry being conducted under the auspices of the university of east anglia.

The IPCC would seem to be accountable to no-one, and basking in that status.

I expect the resolution of this to come, not from a dramatic enquiry, but from the integrity of the scientific community itself. Individuals will emerge with critical viewpoints. Other scientific bodies will be established with motivations other than to scare the world into a new economic order. I notice India has just set up its own body to look at the glacier science. One hopes this will be more objective than the IPCC but it will at least come to the topic from a different viewpoint.

In the meantime we should thank those honest critics who have been prepared to devote large slabs of their own lives to analysing the science and the propaganda.

The Inquiry Report stated that Mann “consented to the public release” of the report. RA-10 says:

A written report shall be prepared that states what evidence was reviewed, a copy of all interview transcripts and/or summaries, and includes the conclusions of the inquiry.

The Inquiry Report says that their interview with Mann was recorded and transcribed. Despite the RA-10 requirement that the written report include a “copy of all interview transcripts”, the Inquiry Report did not contain a transcript of the interview with Mann.

The Inquiry Report said that Gerald North and Donald Kennedy were interviewed. Once again, despite RA-10 requirements, the Inquiry Report did not contain a transcript and/or summary of the interviews with North or Kennedy.

RA-10 said that the Inquiry Report should state “what evidence was reviewed”. It also states:

Documentation in sufficient detail to permit a later assessment, if necessary, of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted shall be maintained for a period of at least three years by the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, and shall be made available upon request to any involved Federal agencies.

Here is how the Inquiry Report describes what evidence was reviewed:

It was agreed that these individuals would meet again in early January and that they would use the time until that meeting to review the relevant information, including the above mentioned e-mails, journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the National Academy of Sciences report entitled “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,” ISBN: 0-309-66144-7 and various blogs on the internet.

Does the statement that they looked at “journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the NAS report and various blogs on the internet” constitute acceptable “documentation” at Penn State for a freshman essay, much less for an Inquiry Report required to provide “sufficient detail to permit a later assessment, if necessary, of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted”.

mpaul, I agree 100% that the university is not obligated to publicly release the Inquiry Report. If the publicly released report is an expurgated version of the actual RA-10 Inquiry Report e.g. with the transcripts removed, then it seems to me that the university is obligated to say that it is an expurgated version and that the transcripts and full bibliography is in the archived version, but not being made public.

If the public report is THE written record, then it seems to me that my comments on non-compliance with RA-10 are valid.

At the time of initiation of the inquiry, and in the ensuing days during the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official. As a result, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell and from these she synthesized the following four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth, or leveled against Dr. Mann, but rather were her best effort to reduce to allegation form the many different accusations that were received from parties outside of the University. The four synthesized allegations were as follows:

So if I were defending I would simply say — well these must be collegial discussions since you don’t have a complaint.

The bolded section shows that these are “outside” complaints and I don’t see haow they could have formal standing.

“At the time of initiation of the inquiry, and in the ensuing days during the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official.”

This seems like a pretty unsatisfactory comment by Penn State (remember, its Penn State, not U Penn.).

RA10 states: “Anyone having reason to believe that a member of the faculty, staff, or a member of the student body has engaged in misconduct in research or other scholarly activity should discuss the situation with his or her budget administrator or budget executive, or the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. Allegations may be the result of misinterpreted communication or misunderstanding and therefore, they may be subject to resolution on a collegial basis, through discussion(s) designed to ascertain whether there is reason to believe that research misconduct may have occurred in violation of this policy. If the results of such discussion(s) confirm the possibility of research misconduct in violation of this policy, the matter should be reported, in writing, to the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. Upon receipt of written allegations of research misconduct, the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School shall promptly provide a copy of such written allegations to the budget executive and budget administrator of the area in which the accused individual is primarily employed, and the Director of The Office For Research Protections. In addition, the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School shall notify the accused individual of the alleged violation(s) of University policy.”

There was amply “reason to believe that a member of the faculty, staff, or a member of the student body has engaged in misconduct.” University officials stated that they were receiving lots of emails and press inquiries about Mann. In fact, I would wager they received more complaints about a single individual than they have received in nthe past. Under RA10 University Officials are *obligated* to do as follows: “the matter should be reported, in writing, to the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School”. Therefore, University officials failed to discharge their responsibility under RA10 to file a formal complaint. For them to now hide behind this excuse is remarkable.

I am repeating myself — but — read the section you quoted — read it very, very, carefully — read it like a nit-picking lawyer — the review procedure is an internal procedure. It is not designed for external complaints. If they used it that way Mann would have a good legal case against the university.

What you and I think should be, or want to happen is not relevant!

Again, they followed their rules — that section does not allow for an outside complaint.

I am not sure that it is an oversight, nor am I sure that it should be a matter for complaint.

We just disagree. Internal officials had “reason to believe that a member of the faculty, staff, or a member of the student body has engaged in misconduct”. Based on this they should have “discuss the situation with his or her budget administrator or budget executive, or the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School.” These discussions should have confirmed “the possibility of research misconduct in violation of this policy”. ‘The possibility’ is a low standard. Clearly, there was the possibility of a problem. The officials then had an obligation to file a report.

You Interview Dr. Mann and he says “All my work here has been to the highest standards. If you can find anything I did wrong (here) please point it out”. Now we are back to square one. And the rest of the collegial discussion goes similarly. Now what?

You point to the external complaints — and he falls back on the point that a complaint must come from within. So I think that is exactly why parts one through three went by the wayside and we are now down to one “charge”.

So that is what they did and have now moved on to part two — the real issues that maybe they can address. And this is difficult to characterize as a “collegial discussion”. that can work once — but twice?

Where this will go I dunno — but you are now pulling apart the policy document correctly.

Having read the whole thing. . .what a puzzling report. As I said at WUWT, they’ve simultaneously CYA and set up a hangin’ posse *at the same time*. From this report he didn’t do anything wrong substantively, but since he was the source of damaging the “public trust” re them by being part of causing an uproar, they might nail him anyway (to at least some degree). Only bureaucrats could find the logic in holding both positions simultaneously.

The important point is that the 4 points were not closed, the last was left open.

The difficulty is to put before the Committe investigating #4, the essence of pertinent material for examination.

Steve has already described the details of many isses at length in past blogs. In every case where I have had a way to confirm, I have found no differences, so I trust him. But now we know it is prudent to concentrate on matters after Mann joined Penn State.

Would it be worthwhile to have readers compile a list of the most pertinent email events with background, and a suggestion as to the rights or wrongs, one paragraph each, that could be sent by an alumnus of Penn State to the Committee?

Jeff Id has done something similar above.

I’m not unhopeful of the Committe, because it includes a Chemist and we Chemists think in slightly different ways e.g. phenolphthalein ALWAYS turns pink in alkaline solution and that behavior is able to be tested over and over. And it has a formal name of 3,3-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)isobenzofuran-1(3H)-one which uniquely identifies it from the IUPAC system. We are more used to following rules and conventions and are a bit more absolute than some other disciplines like post modernism.

Were you one of the complainants against Mann? If so, could we please see the correspondence that you sent to Penn State? Thanks.

So one can conclude that you would have no reservations with someone using FIPPA to see all your UofT emails (sent and received and cc’d and deleted) that may make reference to CA, Mann, CRU, CanWest, David Rose, Friends of Science, Tom Harris, IPCC etc.? Just to make sure that you are on the up and up; of course you are probably clean, just as Mann is, but people are asking questions. Same goes for your colleague McKitrick. The results of all such investigations should be made publically available, including transcripts of all interviews with you and Ross, should it come to that.

Given the important nature of your work here at CA, people have the right to see unequivocal proof that you were telling the truth when you stated that “Everyhting that I’ve [SteveM] done in this, I’ve done in good faith”.

With those important details out of the way, you and Mann could then return to advancing the science.

Gee, Rocky, have you read CA? Have you noticed that Steve posts all data and R scripts online and then corrects them when readers point out mistakes? And did you notice that Steve and Ross have no influence with journals to prevent publication by Hockey Team members? eh? Kind of the opposite of the Team members behavior I would say.

You are making a lame attempt to deflect away from the very important questions raised in here, and your post did not speak to the subject at hand. You do not always get to dictate the discussion, ask the questions and critique.

Notice that Mr. McIntyre has not commented, yet. Yes, he is very open and transparent, at least that is what you have to believe. The silence on McIntyre’s part to a simple and fair question is deafening. Until he and Rick posts all their correspondence with Penn State, and to others regarding the Mann investigation, as well as the other persons/groups listed he is not acting in good faith, nor is he being transparent.

“And did you notice that Steve and Ross have no influence with journals to prevent publication by Hockey Team members?”
Prove it. How? Show everyone all their emails. I’m sure the IT staff at the universities can throw together a .zip file. Now Rogers is a different story.

I’m glad you mentioned M&M’s role in influencing papers. First, you have not proven that Mann has done any wrong doing on that front. The peer-review process at Climate Research was subverted by your colleague, de Freitas and others, not by Mann.

And what is your involvement, if any, in this fabricated fiasco and that very real fiasco at CR? Given that you are so widely published in this field, and probably review many papers, how do we know for sure that you have not had influence with what gets published and what does not? Or what comments you have made, in private, about your colleagues, IPCC or Mann for that matter. So you would be OK with someone requesting to see your emails too then, right? You know, just to be sure. This is after all a very important issue and no stones should be left unturned.

Rocky: We have seen from the ClimateGate emails that Team members not only influenced who got to review their own or other Team members papers, but got editors removed from journals. We have seen that they have prevented anyone from having access to key global data sets being used to set policy. We have seen very questionable chopping of inconvenient data, cherry picking of data and so on for policy critical climate reconstructions. etc. These are the central data used by IPCC and the central authors, not some guy with a blog who you think is harrassing “scientists”. I get emails every week asking questions about my past work and I don’t view it as harrassment even when they disagree with me. Science is a contact sport. Any new result must survive scrutiny and testing.

Now you know very well that is not what happened and not the whole story. Why do you insist on distorting and perpetuating half truths? Even von Storch does not agree with your accusations.

As for ‘cherry-picking’ I see the skeptics doing that an awful lot. For example, SteveM was shown to be cherry-picking data when he undertook his failed Yamal analysis to try and take down Briffa (when he was seriously ill I might add). Didn’t work out too well for CA did it? Or CA claiming that they did not have the data when they had in fact had it since 2004.

As for “not some guy with a blog who you think is harrassing “scientists””. I would call almost 60 FOIA requests in just 5 days to CRU and the Met office as harassment.

“We have seen that they have prevented anyone from having access to key global data sets being used to set policy.”
That is quite the generalization and gross oversimplification. You also fail to understand that CRU and others do not “own” all the data. Were they cagey and paranoid? Yes. Is it any wonder based on how people abuse said data when they get it? Witness what is done here and at other ‘skeptics’ blogs.
The GISS data and code are available, so are the data and code from Mann et al. (2009), you should also be familiar with the very long list of data and code available at RC.

So far Mann et al’s works have proven to be robust and have been corroborated by independent constructions (e.g., borehole proxies, ocean sediment proxies). Your “poor-mans” reconstruction in E&E, not so much.

Have you read the old threads where Steve described his behaviour as a reviewer? Would you care to comment on what he said?

Had anyone suggested before the email leaks from CRU that Steve has been an inappropriate reviewer? (Hint: they have and the reasons given are illuminating) Had anyone earlier made remarks about Michael Mann as a reviewer? (Try this from 2005)

Keith, I think everyone who has had a hand in this should be held accountable, and that includes SteveM. You cannot go round badgering and harassing scientists, while at the same expect to continue to fly under the radar, and to not be held account for ones actions, or expect to avoid being subjected to equal ruthless scrutiny. SteveM expects much accountability and information from others, and so it should be for him.

Many ‘skeptics’ have for far too long enjoyed the luxury of attacking, harassing and misinforming and scrutinizing climate scientists. You sound like a reasonable person, does that modus operandi sound reasonable and just to you? The actions of CA have consequences, this is not cyberworld, we are talking about real people here. If CA are going to throw stones, it has better not be in a glass house, and so far the “skeptics” have relied on their “opponents” always going on the defense.

As for the Penn State panel, I am not going to pontificate like many here, or second guess their procedures, motives, or float conspiracy theories et cetera. That they conducted the investigation in the first place is surprising, given that the allegations were largely unsubstantiated and probably accompanied by much vitriol and rhetoric. Their ruling seems fair, and believe it or not, had it gone the other way, I and would have accepted that ruling too. Just as I will accept the ruling of Sir Russell on the CRU hack.

Mann has been exonerated, and rather than being gracious and accepting the decision Steve M and his followers our now out demanding more blood. It was the same following the NAS investigation, and the role M&M had in the formation and conclusions of the Wegman report One has to wonder just when M&M will be happy. My guess is that they may never be happy, it is not in their best interest and agenda to do so. Also, they will probably be happy only when they get the answer they want, regardless of whether or not that is the right answer or the truth.

Given the sequence of events, and unjust treatment climate scientists over the years, forgive me for being cynical as to the true intentions of those harassing Mann and others. What I see and read here is not supportive of the claim that actions are done in “good faith”.

I’m not shooting the messenger. As I have stated here, I accept the panel’s decision, and would have done so if the outcome were not as glowing. Besides, Mann is not in the clear yet….

CA and other vocal ‘skeptics’ need to be held to the same standards and scrutiny that they expect of others. Anything less would be hypocritical in the extreme. If decisions or policy are changed/implemented based on what goes on here, for example, then people should demand that their ‘science’ and integrity, conduct etc. checks out. So if a blog were influencing government policy, I am sure that you would demand that they were held to account and checked out first. You might also feel very differently if it were you being accused of fallacious crimes or misconduct etc.

You probably also still think that it was a whistle blower that stole the emails. Anyhow, CA is the antithesis of a true whistle blower. Also, there is no crime, so maybe the boy crying wolf is a better analogy for what goes on here. There is a lot of venting going on, many accusations made, but very little substance in the long run, and even less science (e.g., journal papers). Why? Because one cannot indulge in ad hom attacks, rhetoric, opinion and bluster in a journal, but one can do that on a blog.

And please don’t cite the very poor example of Galileo, that one has long ago done its rounds on the blogosphere and been refuted. And please don’t make silly references to religion, that is just pure opinion and rhetoric…and yes, I am aware of the court case in the UK.

You are still suffering from a delusion. The delusion of “proving a negative”. Clearly CA and Steve are not setting policy (Mann is). Clearly CA and Steve are not going to impugn the reputation of a prestigious institution (Mann is). Clearly CA and Steve have not created an instrument of a major scientific hypothesis (it is not a theory). Mannn has.

What CA and Steve has done is point out errors in a work created by Mann, endorsed by Mann (and his institution – by association. That does not work for people, but when an institution uses it to promote themselves, it sure does to them).

IF (very big word) Steve had posited an alternative theory, then you would be correct. He has not. So your pontificating on “equality” boils down to “shooting the messenger” and nothing more.

If you are American, you may be familiar with a SLAP suit (if not, perhaps you have heard about them). And that is what you would like to see. not honest and open debate (as Mann clearly does not want his work to see the light of truth either), but a way to silence the messengers who point out “The Emperor has no clothes”.

Phil, we are clearly on opposites sides of a vast, gaping canyon. Sorry, but I am suffering from no delusions, other than it might be possible to engage in a rational debate here. The misinformation, distortion and even lies put forward by ‘skeptics’ is anything but honest, and the manipulation going on is anything but ‘open’. You guys and CA are shooting the messenger about AGW, i.e., Mann et al. for goodness sakes.

Anyhow, I think arguing with each other is pointless. If we are both around in 30 years, perhaps we can talk again then.

Take care.

PS: Actually, the theory of radiative transfer and forcing of certain gases is very well established, has been over well over 100 years. Your hypothesis is that we can more than double ambient CO2 and for it to have no significant impact on our climate system. So far your hypothesis is not panning out very well. Go and argue with Dr. Alley about GHG forcing, also from Penn State as it happens.

Sorry, but I am suffering from no delusions, other than it might be possible to engage in a rational debate here. The misinformation, distortion and even lies put forward by ’skeptics’ is anything but honest, and the manipulation going on is anything but ‘open’.

Having observed your participation here over a period of time now, it is not surprising that you have been unable to “engage in a rational debate”. You come in swinging with abusive statements and nebulous unfounded accusations and invariably continue to sidetrack the discussion away from the thread topic despite requests to go to Unthreaded if you have something you wish to discuss. Your attitude is not particularly conducive to a meaningful conversation. If you have specific information concerning unethical behaviour and lying (e.g. such as that evidenced in the released emails) by Steve or other CA participants then bring it forward … or get off the pot. Stick to the subject, open your mind by setting aside the biases you so quickly accuse others of and you may get a reasoned, rational debate.

By the way, what makes you think that Steve (or in this case, other moderators) are not entitled to check out who has posted a comment? In my experience at CA, I have not seen anyone use such information to release either an email address or a commenter’s personal identity to the general public.

RomanM, the only reason we know of what was said in the private emails is b/c they were stolen and posted for all to see. One has to wonder what the ‘skeptics’ say in private, what kind of behaviour they engage in? The bias here lies with the ‘skeptics’ RomanM. The ‘skeptisism’ and questioning is strictly uni-directional, can you not see that?

The climate scientists in question have the power and money. They run NCAR, CRU, NASA GISS, IPCC. Reporters call them to check on “the facts”. The can call press conferences and the media attend. You make it sound as if they are the powerless ones being hounded by powerful enemies. You have to be kidding.

Craig, you said somewhere here that science is a contact sport. I agree. Yet, somehow your team has thus far been the only one to do all the tackling– and in the process have delivered some sucker punches without being held to account.

the only reason we know of what was said in the private emails is b/c they were stolen and posted for all to see. One has to wonder what the ’skeptics’ say in private, what kind of behaviour they engage in?

The logic here escapes me. This justifies their unethical professional and/or personal actions somehow??? It’s out of the box now (and we are not responsible for this). For most of us, it corroborates what we have basically known from observations and interactions with them all along. No, it wasn’t pretty and you seem to have difficulty dealing with it. The fact that you can’t point at similar behaviour by the “skeptics” seems to bother you even more.

The ’skeptisism’ and questioning is strictly uni-directional, can you not see that?

Yes, I can see it. The only direction that I personally am trying to head towards is the real, unmanipulated, unpropagandised truth.

RomanM, you misunderstood. First, nobody I know of is justifying poor behaviour. Second, no wrong doing or unethical behaviour has been demonstrated on the part of CRU and their affiliates. Can we wait until Sir Russell makes his ruling? I do not have difficulty with the fact that is not pretty, I am not the least bit surprised in fact given the pressure they were under. You might have reacted the very same way if you were in their shoes. Also, you actually might get squirmy if we had unauthorized access to the emails of ‘skeptics’– you might think that they are honorable, but we just do not know for sure do we? The fact remains that this all has no bearing whatsoever on the radiative forcing of CO2. Don’t argue with me on that, go and argue with Dr. Alley or Dr. Archer.

Where does one start with unethical behaviour of many skeptics? Are you actually serious? Shall we start with Plimer? Or how about Monckton? Or how about Pat Michaels? How about certain media outlets? How about Delingpole (releasing personal information on a blog)? How about certain authors of ‘skeptical’ papers published in Climate Research?

“The only direction that I personally am trying to head towards is the real, unmanipulated, unpropagandised truth.”
It seems more likely that you are looking for something to absolve you form having to take action on AGW. Anyhow, if what you claim is true, then I’m afraid that you are looking in the wrong place here at CA…..do you also frequent WUWT perhaps?

RM: The suggestion that no one can have an opinion (despite the number of unsavory and/or incriminating statements in the emails) until a law enforcement investigation, commission or panel gives their opinion is silly and sounds suspiciously like the rules for discussing AGW invented by those in the field. There was always an effort to limit the discussion and silence the disturbing questions if they interfered with the mission.

There are plain facts and clear statements in those emails. I have opinions about them. I come here on occasion to give voice to them. That’s what blogs are about. If it weren’t for blogs, the truth as we have come to know it would not be apparent.

As for the pressure they were under, despite the fact that it was self-imposed, it looks to me that it was deserving and entirely justified given the problems with the science. If they weren’t making such outrageous claims based on what appears to be flimsy or dubious evidence, there would not be such pressure.

1. Nobody knows if the mails were stolen or not.
2. If they were stolen nothing in that fact changes their content.
3. If you break into your wifes email and find out that she was sleeping with me
that doesn’t make her a faithful wife, you any less of a cuckhold, and me
any less of a rake.

I do have some sympathies for a position that says dr mann should not be “convicted” based on evidence that was illegally obtained. So lets look at the charge. His action leads to a dimunition of public trust in the science.

Can this charge be made on the public record?

yes. Most notably in the mail on feb 21, 2005 you will find keith Briffa forward a long list of editorials to Jones about Mann’s refusal to share data. Jones comments that the skeptics are gaining traction.

Quite simply, mann’s behavior around data and code disclosure has led to a lack of public trust in the science. The public record supports this. The emails merely tell us some of the tricks and tactics he used. The mails also tell us that privately scientists had similiar difficulties. And the same kinds of perceptions of Manns behavior.

One way to proceed is to take testimony from Mann on his actions and his reasoning. Then ask Briffa if Briffa thought manns actions impacted trust.
Ask Jones. Ask Osborn if he thinks that anyone could replicate manns work with the data that was available.

Depending on their answers, then I would see it appropriate to bring in the mails

Wondering about what skeptics say in private: You will see this kind of “conspiracy” thinking throughout the mails. Its a virus that infected Mann and which he spread to others. It colored his tactics. Its the monster in the closet.
My expereince in the skeptic community is that we pretty much dont agree on any much, except that the process should be more open.

As to the uni directional basis of the questioning. Do you not read the mails?
Do you not see Mann et al questioning, nay asserting without evidence that skeptics like steve are engaged in a corporate funded conspiracy?

There is questioning of motives on both sides. How does this mistrust start?

Paras 1&2 are off topic — but SM and others are held to account every day to wit, your post and the many comments on the other blogs (sometimes nasty) such as Real Climate. Comments from both sides have real consequences.

Para 3: Pontificate — like everyone else. Was the ruling fair? I have no idea. Were they just looking at time served at Penn State? Then maybe so. In their position I would have focused my eyes very carefully — I presume that is what they did — and rightly so — they cannot solve all the ills of the world and this debate.

Para 4: Mann was exonerated? Then the announced further inquiry will be canceled? Maybe so. Tell us what you know. 🙂

para5: Maybe Mann and McIntyre should both both be cynical due to treatment…

RockyMtn,
I accept your anger that you feel science is being perverted by this investigation. I would probably feel similar anger if it was someone I respected on the hot seat.

I think you are wrongly attributing blame to CA for Michael Mann’s woes. Steve Mc might be considered by some to be obstructing science (I would disagree) but that in no way warrants Mann’s behavior. I think it does us all a disservice to excuse scientists’ misconduct because they were badgered into poor practices and behaviors by outside influences.

If I behaved similarly I would lose my license and be sitting across the table from a lawyer with no experience in my field but with great power against my interests.

I would just point out that much of the bad behavior documented in ClimateGate emails was before the existence of CA and well before anyone paid any attention to CA. WUWT has existed for, what, 3 years? The hockey stick was born in 1998 or so. The idea that these guys were “forced” into bad behavior because they were put under pressure by sceptics is a red herring.

What behaviour are you referring to exactly? Seems that you have made up your mind despite their ruling…..if he is found guilty on the 4th point, then I am not going to defend him. Same holds true if he had been found guilty on the first three points, turns out he was exonerated. I’m sorry, but you being loathe to accept their ruling speaks of bias. It is not in their interest to exonerate Mann if he did indeed do something wrong. They are a top university, they value their reputation more than than of Mann’s. Protecting Mann only to be found out would be stupid on their part. If he is as evil as people here say, then Penn State will turf him rathe than risk losing endowments from Americas wealthiest citizens.

The fact that Inhofe is now involved just reeks of witch hunt and agenda and politics.

Not exonerated, Rocky. He is still being investigated by Penn State under question 4 of the allegations they judged came from the Climategate emails. There are members of the Pennsylvania state legislature who have said they will also investigate if they believe that the university investigation to have not been thorough enough. Everyone here has been citing areas of the investigation that they believe should be pursued further. Hopefully, someone will relay this information to the Investigatory Committee. They can then decide if the points are valid.

RockyMtn,
So Mann was exonerated by the NAS Panel as you claim? Hmmmm. I suppose if you read the New York Times you would think so. Why not read how things went at the Congressional hearing where people had to testify under oath, such as Gerald North, Chairman of the NAS Panel:

>The following exchange between the committee chairman, Joe Barton, and North establishes who was right.

CHAIRMAN BARTON Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

Barton then asked North’s colleague on the NAS panel, Peter Bloomfield, a similar question. Bloomfield’s reply: “Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.”<

The above is copied from the article I referenced earlier in this discussion.
It might prove very interesting to hear how certain people would testify "under oath" regarding the vindication of Dr. Mann in this matter.

Oh, dear! Filing or being suspected of filing or just inspiring others to
file legitimate and legal Freedom of Information Act requests is “badgering
and harassing” the scientists! Just asking that routine scientific data be
made available is now “scrutinizing” the scientists. I’m not sure how
SteveM and his followers have ever “misinformed” the “scientists”.

The findings and, more importantly, the focus have set off a wave of criticism accusing the university panel of failing to interview key people, neglecting to conduct more than a cursory review of allegations and structuring the inquiry so that the outcome — exoneration — was a foregone conclusion.

On Friday, Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Investigations Committee, charged that the Penn State’s failure to settle all the charges and called into question professor Mann’s work. He is demanding that all grants to the noted scientist be frozen.

Climate scientists publish in areas, that unfortunately have enormous impact on many, many people of the world. It is they who fly under the radar, dressing themselves in the garb of the innocent scientist – for public consumption, and carrying out activities as detailed in their own emails behind the smokescreen.

All this wouldn’t have arisen if some scruples were in place firstly. If Mann was a man of honor and not just a practitioner of the despicable art of appearing honest, if Mann did not believe that it was not at about truth but plausible deniability…

“Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character”
Albert Einstein

You would just love it if the rest of the world just rolled over to one side, wouldn’t you?

When public policy is deciding how to spend bilions, even trillions of dollars, then the debate should require full disclosure and be in the open. Steve M has and is doing a great service by making very reasonable demands for disclosure. Science most be reproduceable, or it is not science. Starting with the “censored file” there have been ligitmate concerns about Dr Mann. It is hard to deny that Dr Mann is a somewhat extreme political advocate of his own research.

In the future instead of try to hijack the thread and change the focus, I suggest you answer the concerns expressed or start your own blog.

So one can conclude that you would have no reservations with someone using FIPPA to see all your UofT emails (sent and received and cc’d and deleted) that may make reference to CA, Mann, CRU, CanWest, David Rose, Friends of Science, Tom Harris, IPCC etc.?

It seems like you think Steve has some recent (in the e-mail era) connection with UofT. Could you perhaps give us the dates when this might have occurred?

III.As researchers/scholars, professors recognize that their goal is to discover, develop, and communicate new understanding. This goal is rarely achieved without making use of knowledge gained from others. Researchers must always exercise gracious and appropriate recognition of published work in the literature, conversations with colleagues, and the efforts of students who work under the researchers’ guidance. They must be scrupulous in presentation of their own data; it must be verifiable as a result of the highest standards in data gathering techniques. They must be extremely careful in the use of data reported by others, especially if used in the formation of broad comparative or contradictory hypotheses, since they may not know of any compromising circumstances in such data gathering. They must be comprehensive in consideration of work with human subjects; they must have thoroughly researched all procedures, must have informed individuals involved of all aspects of their cooperation, and must report all responses accurately, both positive and negative results. As open-minded researchers, when evaluating the work of others, they must recognize the responsibility to allow publication of theories or experiments that may contradict their own findings, as only by free inquiry and dissemination of all facts will the fruits of the labor of the whole community be allowed to mature.

The report indicates (p.3):

From November 30 to December 14, 2009, staff in the Office for Research Protections culled through approximately 1075 of the emails […] In summary, the following were found:

• 206 emails that contained a message/text from Dr. Mann somewhere in the chain;
• 92 emails that were received by Dr. Mann, but in which he did not write/participate in the discussion; and
• 79 that dealt with Dr. Mann, his work or publications; he neither authored nor was he copied on any of these.

From among these 377 emails, the inquiry committee focused on 47 emails that were deemed relevant. […]

It’s not entirely clear from the above whether the committee selected the 47 emails on which they “focused”, or whether this selection was done by staff as part of the “culling” process. If I were on the committee, I would certainly have wanted to see more than 47. But that aside …

In light of III above, and the committee’s findings on the “synthesized allegations”, I can’t help wondering if perhaps the “focus” of the committee resulted in their inadvertently missing the … uh … tallest trees in the forest. At the very least, it would be interesting to know the 47 emails on which the committee did focus – although I somehow doubt that we ever shall.

The responsibilty clearly shifted away from Mann and his individual misconduct to Gerry North, who repeatedly represents and exercises institutional and system failure.

Steve: It’s too bad in many ways that attention is on Mann, rather than enablers. At this blog, I’ve tried to maintain some focus on the role of agencies like NSF in condoning non-archiving and other bad behavior.

So, let me get this right. In one of the emails Mann and Jones get together to get someone sacked.

“ e-mail exchange from 2003, Mann and Jones discuss a scheme for getting rid of Hans Von Storch, the editor of the journal Climate Research, for publishing the contrary research of distinguished fellow scientists”.

But none of the 4 charges covered this sort of behaviour? This sort of behaviour is acceptable to Penn? or was it before he joined Penn and is therefore irrelevant (sic)?

There university lists 4 heads of misconduct, only the first being applicable:

(1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.

Of the 4 charges against Mann, the first 3 are specific instances of the general misconduct charged in the 4th.

The 4th charge is to be further investigated, but the specific instances of misconduct are precluded from being considered in the further investigation.

In effect, Mann is to be tried before an honour court, the Investigative Committee, for “conduct unbecoming a scientist”. They have to decide “Is he one of us?” Clearly, the Inquiry Committee have their doubts.

The decision bespeaks a very “home made” procedure and the referral to the Investigative Committee may not be sustainable. They have confused the rule with the particulars of breach. There is only one rule that is alleged to have been violated and 3 particulars of breach.

The charge he was required to answer was that:

Breach of rule:
You did fabricate, falsifiy, or engage in other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.

Particulars of breach:

1. You engaged or participated in, directly or indirectly, actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?
2. You engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
3. You engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

To find a prima facie breach of the rule that would warrant proceeding to an Investigative Committee the Inquiry Committee needed to find evidence that could prove at least one particular of breach. However, they have found there is no evidence of any particular of breach.

In the UK a court would probably restrain them from proceeding further, I suspect the same is true in Pennsylvania.

Below a summary of some of the points made in policy AD47 regarding the professional conduct of Professors. Perhaps readers of this site can suggest specific issues that need to be investigated against each point to assist the hard-pressed Penn State investigation board?

Policy AD47 General standards of professional ethics

To set forth statements of general standards of professional ethics to serve as a reminder of the variety of obligations assumed by all members of the academic community

I.
1) They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge.

2) They practice intellectual honesty.

3) Although they may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.

II.
1)As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before their students the best scholarly standards of their respective disciplines.

III.
1)They must be scrupulous in presentation of their own data; it must be verifiable as a result of the highest standards in data gathering techniques.

2)As open-minded researchers, when evaluating the work of others, they must recognize the responsibility to allow publication of theories or experiments that may contradict their own findings, as only by free inquiry and dissemination of all facts will the fruits of the labor of the whole community be allowed to mature.

IV.

1)They respect and defend the free inquiry of their associates.

2)In the exchange of criticism and ideas they show due respect for the opinions of others.

V.
1)As members of their institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars.

VI.
1)As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have an articular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.

Please consider engaging directly with Spanier.
He is an Iowa State alum who was giving them a speech Tuesday night on ‘what he learns by sleeping in the dorms’.
He seems to try to actually know what’s going on at the various levels of his institution.

We are still very early in the larger process of understanding and evaluating the damage that Dr. Mann has done to his discipline, to science and to the society at large. SteveM has done a superb job of documenting the technical problems with Mann’s work as well as some of Mann’s ethical (and possibly legal) violations. I am pretty sure there will be many additional investigations, hearings, etc Will we see Mann in shackles before this is over? Possibly; he has to be worried that.

Re: Craig Loehle (Feb 4 11:18),
The same is done in MBH99, see the black smooth. The only difference to Jones’ WMO figure is that the smoothed curve is cut to end in 1980. Plus of course that Jones cut Briffa’s series to 1960. I plotted MBH99 (instead of the WMO figure once again) as the Committee seems to be saying that the trick itself is “legitimate” and “reviewed by a broad array of peers”. I find the statement astonishing in a respect that have not been covered yet: I guess nobody outside the Team was even aware of the “trick” before UC noticed it two years ago.

My understanding is that their have been two varieties of the “trick” in various places. One is to cut short a series that is supposed to be a temperature proxy that diverges and overlay it with the actual temperature series so that the divergence is hidden. The second is a smoothing trick to force the proxy to blend with the temperature series which I think is what Jean S shows in his post above.

If they had actually found him guilty of misconduct then they’d have to hand back the half-million stimulus plus any other grants obtained under false pretenses. History tells us that anyone on that panel who endangered that University funding would be quickly removed. It’s for the funding committees to investigate, not the University: Turkeys don’t vote for xmas!

Based on experiences with the UK Iraq inquiries, Gerry North will likely receive a nice promotion in the near future.

The Inquiry Committee would have done better to look at what he, and others did, rather than seeing if the word “trick” bore any exculpatory meaning.

No mathematical short cut to a defined result was involved here so it was not a computational trick. Calculus is a computational trick, in the sense of a mathematical insight that solves a problem. Here the issue was the choice of placeholders to enable a smoothed value to be calculated at the end of a series.

This is a question of judgement, not mathematics, and Mann has published his thoughts on how this can be done, so he is aware of the issues. There are a number of options, he chose the option which was most consistent with his theory and least consistent with the “bad” data. He, no doubt, chose that option of maintaining the trend in the recent “good” data, because it was consistent with his theory, this may be thought to lack conservatism in that it was least consistent with the discarded data, but is a valid exercise of judgement.

There is no explanation of the principled reason for discarding data (I have never seen one), no marking of the smoothed data to indicate which data points are comprised solely of real data and which are an admixture of real data and placeholders and no explanation of the method of choosing placeholders.

What may have been acceptable in a scientific paper for the consumption of others familiar with the issues, if suitably marked and qualified, was, in the context of the WMO graphic, a “trick” in the sense of a reckless deception.

Leaving aside the issue of dishonesty on a different but connected point Bob, you say “This is a question of judgement, not mathematics, and Mann has published his thoughts on how this can be done, so he is aware of the issues. There are a number of options, he chose the option which was most consistent with his theory and least consistent with the “bad” data. He, no doubt, chose that option of maintaining the trend in the recent “good” data, because it was consistent with his theory, this may be thought to lack conservatism in that it was least consistent with the discarded data, but is a valid exercise of judgement.”

I am not sure that I entirely agree that this is purely a question of judgment- is it not also a question of rigour? Doesn’t this precisely describe the virtue of Popper? You can always find data to support your hypothesis, but it is the “bad data” that you need to face and explain. If you can’t explain it it goes toward falsifying your hypothesis.

I agree. In a narrow academic context there is a lot of wriggle room for doing this or doing that. If you look at the broad picture, what was being done and why, the choice was to promote a particular hypothesis and conceal inconsistent data in a high profile forum.

yep – agreed. And request a specific response to your complaint. The details of the new Committee and their administrator are on page 9 of the first link in Steve’s post and their remit is quoted as:

“The investigatory committee’s charge will be to consider what are the bounds of accepted practice in this instance and whether or not Dr. Mann did indeed engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.”

“Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?”

Thursday, 29 May 2008 07:12:02 : Filename: 1212063122.txt Dr. Jones asks Dr.
Mann to delete emails regarding the development of the IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report and contact a colleague to do the same.
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new
email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise…
Cheers
Phil

Huh? A third grader could and would conclude that at a minimum, Mann participated indirectly with the deletion and/or destruction of emails.

I am a PSU meteo grad and I am doing everything I can to have Mann terminated, as the reputation of the university is taking a beating thanks to him. I encourage other PSU grads to contact Graham Spanier directly at president@psu.edu.

One of the difficulties here is that this is a university enquiry, not a court of law. In a court of law, Dr. Mann’s response would certainly to me indicate that he has a case to answer (what else is he contacting Gene about except to pass on the deletion message? To say hello?). There is an easy answer. There must have been an e-mail communication between Dr. Mann and Gene, in Mann’s sent e-mails (unless Mann was misleading Jones). That is the crucial e-mail as far as Mann is concerned. If one exists, therein lies the answer.

You are correct that Penn State failed to answer one of the critical questions regarding Mann’s response to the request for destruction of emails. What he may have done, if we believe his own words in the response to Jones, is to pass along the request to Gene. Yet the report is silent on whether such an email exists or not.

General principles of the law concerning conspiracy do not require that the object of the conspiracy be accomplished. So it is not dispositive that Mann did not destroy any of his emails. It is not even required that anyone else destroyed emails. I may suggest to another person that we rob a bank. If that person writes a note and procures a gun, we may be guilty of conspiracy even if we never carry out the plan any further. If in fact Mann did pass the request on to Gene he likely joined a conspiracy.

But even if that were not true, it is alarming that Penn State did not even comment on the lack of ethics evident in Mann’s responsive email. It seems to me the only proper response is to the request is “No – I cannot do that”. Anything less shows a remarkable lack of integrity and judgment.

I apologise for introducing another topic to this post but I wish to bring it to your attention immediately. I have also posted it on WUWT.

The BBC has just posted an on-line article stating that Scotland has had its coldest combined December and January temperatures since official records began in 1914. The reference is the UK Met Office. The story has been picked up by the ICECAP website.

There is no mention on the Met Office website of this story. I have just spoken with an official from the Met Office and she confirmed the story stating that data from the Met Office did suggest such a cold winter for Scotland. When I enquired as to why this story was not put out as an official press release I was told there was no need to do this. I was told it was not the Met Office’s policy to make such statements: “…we just provide the data”

When I asked if the Met Office would have produced a Press Release if the Scottish winter had been the warmest on record the officer was equivical: ”I don’t know” was her hesitant reply. She argued there was no need to make a statement about the Winter being the coldest on record: ” Why… what for?” she asked.

I ask readers to make up their own minds. For the Met Office, the coldest Scottish winter on record does not merit a mention.

IMHO some here should consider carefully making a formal complaint against Michael Mann. I do not believe that the first three aspects of the synthesized complaints investigated by this committee are necessarily excluded from further investigation under disciplinary procedures.It can be argued that this panel’s investigatory work is flawed.

If you do wish to make a formal complaint (and i think some should) I suggest that you will need to make the complaint paying close regard to the University’s policies and procedures. You will probably need to provide supporting evidence, documents, references, details of any witness statements that there might be.

Actions by Michael Mann before he was employed by Penn State University are in MHO unlikely to be considered as prima facie evidence of misconduct. It might be worthwhile making an informal approach to the University to establish this before beginning to make a complaint. It is possible that MBH 1998 1999 is relevant should complaints against Dr Mann be upheld. Mann’s previous acts of misconduct elsewhere might be relevant to any disciplinary action against him Penn State might consider.You need to include chapter and verse on MBH 1998 1999 with an explanation

I read here irregularly and am not a scientist. I became a full time carer for my father 15 years ago. Before that I provided representation for University academics in trouble. I was a paid consultant for the Union.

Is there prima facie evidence of deleting e-mails? Has Dr Mann deliberately or in error breached any FOI legislation? Is there evidence of manipulation of the peer review process or obstruction of publications?

I think you might have to rely on Mann 2008 but I have not read closely enough to be certain about that. there are certain key questions I would put to Dr Mann: Why would a scientist include as data for a proxy temperature reconstruction, proxies which were stated in the literature to be unreliable as proxies? Mind, you will need to have an answer as to why many studies exist which use the same data. The work of Steve, Jean S, UC and Jeff ID looks pretty important as possible evidence.

make complaints as individuals. Be prepared to go to hearings as witnesses and to lead out your complaint. Be prepared to invest time. These things are always stressful

I think the best course of action at this point is for us to express our opinions (in a calm and well-reasoned fashion) to people that matter and might make a difference. That would include various Penn State figures as well as Pennsylvania legislators. Here are email addresses for some of them:

Henry C. Foley, Vice President for Research, Dean of the Graduate School (headed up inquiry):hcf3@psu.edu

Candice A. Yekel,
Director, Office for Research Protections Research Integrity Officer (member of inquiry panel and will provide administrative support and assistance to Investigation panel):ORProtections@psu.edu

Good post. I haven’t read all the comments, but I thought I’d better comment while I’m here:

1. Someone please send this post to the local and campus newspaper.

2. The post is making a point the first comments on this thread miss. It’s not that the report is a whitewash. We all expected that. It’s that the report is full of lies– of statements easily, objectively, provable to be false without even a lot of work. Stuff that if under oath would be perjury. That’s a lto more surprising than a statement like, “In our expert opinion, after examining evidence, Prof. Mann has done nothing wrong,” which is what an intelligent liar would say.

How can such an “investigation” get by without howls from the MSM? When those accusing the defendant of technical misconduct are not brought to the review, then who and what is being defended? This reads like my kids soccer games who “win” when the other team doesn’t show up. Mann has won through default. If there is no evidence of malfeasance brought to court, there is no case to be decided. Hiding behind the letter of the law or rules while violating the spirit of the law or rules appears our new, social norm. It’s all about appearing to be the Righteous one, not about being the Right one.

Rocky mountain, seems vaguely familiar. The link to his name goes to /deleted/

I wonder what that means. I have an idea, but never mind, I was reading Dr. Suess.

the first thing one must recognize is a pattern of behavior. When personalities are involved one should be highly suspicious of anonymous people who throw mud. That is why I use my real name. When an anonymous person throw mud and changes the topic from mann to SteveMc, that is a pattern of behavior.
I have seen this pattern before. My first response is this. If you want to turn the light on SteveMc, then first step out of the shadows RockyMtn.

That way we can see if you have a dog in the fight. I suspect you do. I’ll respond to your post in a bit, point by point. But for now, I’ll just let everyone speculate about why you are anonymous. and why your name links to ‘deleted’. back to reading Dr. Suess.

“Keith, I think everyone who has had a hand in this should be held accountable, and that includes SteveM. You cannot go round badgering and harassing scientists, while at the same expect to continue to fly under the radar, and to not be held account for ones actions, or expect to avoid being subjected to equal ruthless scrutiny. SteveM expects much accountability and information from others, and so it should be for him.”

1. Mann is being held accountable to a standard he agreed to operate under
Suggest a standard that steve should be held accountable under.
2. Whatever standard you pick, WHATEVER standard, the dictates of fairness
require that one be allowed to face one’s accusers. Who are you?

You demand equal ruthless scrutiny, yet in practice you practice inequity.
Ruthless doesnt bother me. Scruniny? not a problem. My problem is with
you. you want to interrogate? Stand in the light, speak for your self and not
for the trees.

“Many ’skeptics’ have for far too long enjoyed the luxury of attacking, harassing and misinforming and scrutinizing climate scientists. You sound like a reasonable person, does that modus operandi sound reasonable and just to you? The actions of CA have consequences, this is not cyberworld, we are talking about real people here. If CA are going to throw stones, it has better not be in a glass house, and so far the “skeptics” have relied on their “opponents” always going on the defense.”

Last I looked every skeptic starts by attacking the science. When they are denied data or code, they wonder why. This causes motive hunting. On the other hand, if you read the mails, you will see that mann’s kneejerk response to a Mcintyre paper is to cry “fraud” before he even reads it. One side reads the paper, attacks the science, then the man. The other, attacks the man, doesnt read the paper, and then attacks the man again. I entered this discussion in 2007 with an open mind. very quickly the tactics of smear and data hiding on the climate scientists side, sickened me. Oh, I hold Judith Curry as an great example of openness, just saying.

“As for the Penn State panel, I am not going to pontificate like many here, or second guess their procedures, motives, or float conspiracy theories et cetera. That they conducted the investigation in the first place is surprising, given that the allegations were largely unsubstantiated and probably accompanied by much vitriol and rhetoric. Their ruling seems fair, and believe it or not, had it gone the other way, I and would have accepted that ruling too. Just as I will accept the ruling of Sir Russell on the CRU hack.”

And if the ruling of sir russel is that the file was accessed by somebody using a CRU password, how will that change your opinion. If a whistleblower comes forward how will that change you opinion. In my mind it matters not one whit how the mails got out. they say what they say. Its a difference that makes no difference. Nothing turns on the motives of the hacker/whistleblower. Nothing.
That you would even care about that shows you dont think very deeply about things. But we already knew that.

“Mann has been exonerated, and rather than being gracious and accepting the decision Steve M and his followers our now out demanding more blood. It was the same following the NAS investigation, and the role M&M had in the formation and conclusions of the Wegman report One has to wonder just when M&M will be happy. My guess is that they may never be happy, it is not in their best interest and agenda to do so. Also, they will probably be happy only when they get the answer they want, regardless of whether or not that is the right answer or the truth.”

Rather than speculate about what will make steve happy, just ask him.

I’d start with a short list of corrections and attributions.

For example. A simple question for you. In one paper mann mislocated a temperature proxy. Steve informed him of this. mann published another paper mislocating the same proxy. Steve notified him and blogged about it.
Mann finally corrected the error. Without notice. WIthout crediting Steve.
That amounts to academic dishonesty in my book and perhaps in penn state’s guidelines. Now, you be fair for us.

If the facts are as I have described them. Should the researcher place notice
of the change he has made? should he credit the person who found the error.
Forget that it is steve finding an error in mann. take the personalities out.
Render a judgement.

“Given the sequence of events, and unjust treatment climate scientists over the years, forgive me for being cynical as to the true intentions of those harassing Mann and others. What I see and read here is not supportive of the claim that actions are done in “good faith”.”

See above. Render your judgment so we can see if you have any credibility

[North] claimed that since the emails were ‘private’ and ‘stolen’ it was not proper to read them. Out of professional ‘respect’ he said that he had not read the emails and could not comment.

It seems to me that Penn State could surely have located someone to interview who had actually read the emails and put himself into a position to comment. I wonder whether Kennedy had read the emails either.

North’s decision not to read the emails out of “professional respect” does remind me of the famous joke – varied slightly here.

Did you hear about Phil Jones on vacation whose sailboat capsized in dangerous, shark-infested waters?

He surprised his traveling companions by volunteering to swim to the far-off shore for help. As he swam, his companions were startled by the appearance of two dorsal fins — great white sharks, heading straight toward Jones.

To their surprise, the sharks allowed Jones to take hold of their fins, and escorted him safely to shore.

When Jones returned with help, his companions asked him how he had managed such an incredible feat. Jones answered, “Professional respect.”

The Indian government has just declared that India is quitting the IPCC and that it will be conducting its own climate research following Pachauri’s debacle. The mutiny has commenced while the captain and officers are trying to give the impression that the ship is still in control, such as Penn State is trying to do. The more they try to hide the truth the greater will be their final fall.

@R.S.Brown: Oh, dear! Filing or being suspected of filing or just inspiring others to file legitimate and legal Freedom of Information Act requests is “badgering
and harassing” the scientists! Just asking that routine scientific data be made available is now “scrutinizing” the scientists. I’m not sure how SteveM and his followers have ever “misinformed” the “scientists”.

Well, Penn State has jumped on that bandwagon. They’re claiming they’re exempt from FOIA and Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law.

Don’t be surprised if PA’s legislature takes it on themselves to get involved in this. The Senate Education Committee can really put the screws to Spanier and the university if it wants to.

The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.

Mann at Realclimate:

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

I can only assume from a the comments that a number of you are in academics. After reading your responses I’m not at all happy with any of you. If there were PhD’s in “Circular Reasoning” or “CYA” you would all be qualified.

As a layman I think I have this correct:

I should be able to expect researchers to objectively gather data, evaluate that data in a reasonable and open manner and report unbiased results.

But, if you don’t, I can expect each of you cover for your colleague’s indiscretions. I certainly can’t expect an environment where questionable results can be challenged and openly discussed. To paraphrase Jones .et al, We’ll kill you professionally.

The process seems to be designed to protect grants , assure tenure, and make sure I don’t get investigated.

As I follow the disuussion of the Penn State investigation. The process sounds more like a jailhouse lawyer script than an honest attempt to get at the truth. We have a procedure, but you have to read every last word, and it’s sure not to lead to a conclusion.

Peer review- what’s that!!!!

What you guys don’t seem to understand is that all science/academia has come under question. We ,the uninformed rabble, are looking to see what the community does to correct the problems.

The Penn State investigation failed miserably.

Just an aside– Roy Spencer (climate denier supreme) released the January lower atmosphere temperature today. It was +.72°C. ,not very good news for a denier. His comment “We don’t hide the data or use tricks, folks…it is what it is.”

I like your Jailhouse lawyer statement. It’s very true. There are several examples where some of the CRUTeam (Jones, Schmidt) ran around passing out legal advice. At least Mann started begging for free legal help early on and didn’t think he should jailhouse law it, for his congressional hearing as an example.

The best way to critique the PSU investigators may be to start with a Devil’s Advocate position and see if that position survives scrutiny. Areas where no sensible defense of PSU’s actions survives are the ones worth publicizing.

Question 1: Was it sensible for the PSU committee to consult with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy?

Question 2 (related): What should the investigators have learned from the dirty laundry email?

The committee apparently focused most of their attention on Mann’s actions while he was at PSU, but they may have wanted to get a outside assessment about the main controversies that took place before Mann came to PSU. As head of the NAS “investigation” of MBH98 and MBH99 and their use in the TAR, North should have been the ideal person to consult. North, a climate expert chosen by the NAS, would be a much more obvious choice than Wegman, a statistician chosen by Republican politicians who deny AGW. (Both would be better.)

North would likely tell the PSU that independent investigators (Wahl & Ammann) had reached the same conclusions as Mann using the same data – even if M&M did not. This would presumably allow the investigators to conclude that there were no likely issues of fraud, only normal scientific disagreement. North might also tell the committee that off-centered PC’s “could” have produced misleading results, but that Mann appeared to have reached a sensible conclusion despite this mistake.

Since Mann’s work was published in Nature, the PSU investigators could logically have chosen to consult with the editor of a similar journal (such as Donald Kennedy) about the norms for making data and computer programs publicly accessible. They may have also wanted to know if Mann met his obligation to deal fairly with his critics and correct any key mistakes in his paper. Almost any editor would tell PSU that M&M’s expectations for disclosure are not the norm in science (even though M&M have proven that journals need to raise standards.)

In an ideal world, the PSU investigators could have found that Mann has allowed other investigators to continue to use his mathematically incorrect off-centered PC1 for a decade instead of attempting to replace it with a composite of centered PC1-5. Mann also should have included the r2 values and “corrected” his claim that his conclusions were robust to eliminating tree-rings. Should the Climategate emails have lead the PSU investigators to these ongoing problems with MBH98? Would North or Kennedy have volunteered useful information on these subjects?

Here is the key language from the “dirty laundry” email, which raised new issues: “Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000, AD 1400 and AD 1600 … you’ll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case … its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably larger uncertainties farther back…”

What does the redness of residuals tell statisticians (not me) that the calculated uncertainty shown in the graph of the reconstruction doesn’t? Is this: much ado about nothing, 2) definitive suppression of relevant data that the investigators should have uncovered, or 3) limited evidence of lack of scientific integrity?

First of all, those who accuse Steve McIntyre of spreading false scientific claims would be wise to provide proof if they want to be taken seriously. They should keep in mind that since the CRU leaks and IPCC scandals, AGW proponents do not possess the presumption of credibility.

Secondly, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the skeptics are not using millions of dollars in tax-payer money to fund their research, and they are not advocating massive regulatory changes and wealth transfer schemes based on bad science. I’m not as critical of those who want to leave me alone as I am of those who want to micro-manage my life and take my money. Funny thing about that.

Thirdly, even though it’s been decades since I’ve taken a college science class, I seem to recall that it’s the responsibility of the scientist who is proposing a theory to prove it. Otherwise anyone could just make any old claim they want and have it accepted as fact. AGW skeptics are performing a time-honored and essential service by examining and critiquing the AGW research. If Michael Mann thinks the critics are wrong, he can — and should — explain why.

Fourthly, the Penn State investigation was clearly a joke and a disgrace to their Institution.

[…] the original issues. White wash #2 assured. Tic tock, perhaps the world will tire of it, eh? Steve McIntyre, the world's most vocal and professional critic of Mann, points out a couple lies in … He wasn't interviewed and that right there is all you need to know about the 'depth' of their […]

[…] three charges were rejected by sources such as Fox News and well know climate sceptic blog site Climate Audit. As Scholars and Rogues aptly demonstrated though, these claims of further wrongdoing by a […]

[…] selling his innocence, as I discussed a few days ago, I was pleased when I came across this clear explanation of some major issues in the so-called inquiry by Penn State into the Mann’s actions. I urge […]

Interesting description of Penn State’s ‘thorough investigation’ of Michael Mann’s actions: The only interviews mentioned in the report (aside from Mann) are with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy, editor of Science. [Since they are required to provid…